Talk:у меня есть мечта
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Liliana-60 in topic у меня есть мечта
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
For the same reason that "I have a dream" was deleted. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- О боже мой, please delete. --WikiTiki89 21:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking of Russian phrases, oughtn't we to have an entry for о боже мой? Do you guys shorten it like ОБМ, and if so, can that be added too? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- No idea about shortenings and stuff as I mostly use Russian verbally and not online. Oddly enough, we already have о боже and боже мой. I'll add о боже мой right now. --WikiTiki89 15:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I just thought that it might exist given that English speakers use (deprecated template usage) OMG verbally... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not on top of the latest Russian slang though. --WikiTiki89 13:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I just thought that it might exist given that English speakers use (deprecated template usage) OMG verbally... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- No idea about shortenings and stuff as I mostly use Russian verbally and not online. Oddly enough, we already have о боже and боже мой. I'll add о боже мой right now. --WikiTiki89 15:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking of Russian phrases, oughtn't we to have an entry for о боже мой? Do you guys shorten it like ОБМ, and if so, can that be added too? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Let's see what we have here so far. We have a soft redirect at I have a dream indicating that we have no page on the phrase, and a talk page at Talk:I have a dream explaining that we have no page on the phrase, but we also have a citations page at Citations:I have a dream showing three durably archived citations of idiomatic use of the phrase (that is, use obliquely referencing the Martin Luther King, Jr. speech, but not actually mentioning King or his speech at all). We also have an article at Wikipedia at I Have a Dream, which (unlike the citations here) is capitalized, because it is the name of the work, and not a reference to the phrase. Of course, Wikipedia's article makes no mention of the idiomatic use of the term, because that would be the provenance of a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Finally, Wikipedia actually has not one, but thirty-eight articles on the subject, because that is apparently how many languages the phrase can be found in. We have a list of these translations, which would normally be found in the entry for the phrase, but in this case are found on the talk page of the aforementioned soft redirect. If we are going to relegate demonstrably idiomatic phrases to Wikipedia, with little or no information on their idiomacity, and suffer this gap in our coverage of the English language, then we might as well fold all of Wiktionary into Wikipedia and have an encyclopedia that also reports dictionary definitions, so that this gap can be filled. bd2412 T 19:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't an RFD for I have a dream. That's over and done, and you can either live with the result or propose it for undeletion. The entry in question here has nothing to do with "our coverage of the English language" and any arguments of idiomaticity in this specific case ought to be made to Wikitiki89, a native Russian speaker who has voiced his opinion above. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- On that note, my position is to restore I have a dream. DAVilla 13:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't an RFD for I have a dream. That's over and done, and you can either live with the result or propose it for undeletion. The entry in question here has nothing to do with "our coverage of the English language" and any arguments of idiomaticity in this specific case ought to be made to Wikitiki89, a native Russian speaker who has voiced his opinion above. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with bd2412 that the citations, and other citations which are out there, show idiomatic use of the English phrase. I agree with what bd said in the old discussion:
- "Furthermore, if I were to say, "I have a dream that all the spoons in the sink will be washed and put away", you would instantly understand that I was […] implying that washing the spoons and putting them away was some grand aspiration, achievable only in some sort of ideal future."
- The Russian phrase is a separate matter—I would be surprised if it had entered the Russian lexicon as idiomatically as the English phrase has entered the English lexicon. - -sche (discuss) 20:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- The citations bd2412 just added to Citations:I have a dream, from the 1800s, actually make me less likely to see this as idiomatic. I would previously have viewed usage as constituting reference to MLK's speech, and as being ironic when the vision was small (spoons being washed) rather than large (racism not existing). The 1800s uses cannot be references to MLK, and they make it clearer to me that the phrase is simply "I" (first person singular) + "have" (possess) + "a" (one) + "dream" (vision). A "dream" (vision) may, in this phrase as in others, be either grand or small. Many modern uses are allusions to MLK, but I am no longer convinced that saves the phrase from unidiomaticity. - -sche (discuss) 20:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- The earlier existence of non-idiomatic uses of a phrase can't detract from the idiomacity of later clearly idiomatic uses. For example, there are plenty of nineteenth century uses of "hay is for horses" that literally mean that hay is grown to be eaten by horses. This does not detract from the modern use of hay is for horses. The fact that King was not the first to use "I have a dream" to enunciate a sweeping vision does not prevent later users from implicitly referencing King when they say, for example, "I have a dream that one day . . . my heirs will shill my image in cell-phone ads..." bd2412 T 20:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just because "I have a dream" is usually a reference to MLK's speech, that doesn't make the phrase and less SOP. --WikiTiki89 13:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- The phrase is SOP only if the intent is to convey that the speaker in fact has a dream, in this case in the sense of a lofty vision. Where the intent is to convey that the speaker has an inflated sense of his vision (or that the vision is really not lofty at all), the usage is idiomatic. bd2412 T 01:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call that an idiom. I would call that either hyperbole or sarcasm, neither of which are idiomatic. --WikiTiki89 08:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- The phrase is SOP only if the intent is to convey that the speaker in fact has a dream, in this case in the sense of a lofty vision. Where the intent is to convey that the speaker has an inflated sense of his vision (or that the vision is really not lofty at all), the usage is idiomatic. bd2412 T 01:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Just because "I have a dream" is usually a reference to MLK's speech, that doesn't make the phrase and less SOP. --WikiTiki89 13:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- The earlier existence of non-idiomatic uses of a phrase can't detract from the idiomacity of later clearly idiomatic uses. For example, there are plenty of nineteenth century uses of "hay is for horses" that literally mean that hay is grown to be eaten by horses. This does not detract from the modern use of hay is for horses. The fact that King was not the first to use "I have a dream" to enunciate a sweeping vision does not prevent later users from implicitly referencing King when they say, for example, "I have a dream that one day . . . my heirs will shill my image in cell-phone ads..." bd2412 T 20:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- The citations bd2412 just added to Citations:I have a dream, from the 1800s, actually make me less likely to see this as idiomatic. I would previously have viewed usage as constituting reference to MLK's speech, and as being ironic when the vision was small (spoons being washed) rather than large (racism not existing). The 1800s uses cannot be references to MLK, and they make it clearer to me that the phrase is simply "I" (first person singular) + "have" (possess) + "a" (one) + "dream" (vision). A "dream" (vision) may, in this phrase as in others, be either grand or small. Many modern uses are allusions to MLK, but I am no longer convinced that saves the phrase from unidiomaticity. - -sche (discuss) 20:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
deleted -- Liliana • 07:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)